Janne Johansson <icepic...@gmail.com> wrote: > Really simple actually, www.openbsd.org/goals.html , point #2 > > * "Integrate good code from any source with acceptable licenses... the GPL is > not acceptable > when adding new code" > and the mtr ports Makefile: > https://cvsweb.openbsd.org/cgi-bin/cvsweb/ports/net/mtr/Makefile?annotate=1.75 > line 10 or so, > # GPLv2+ > > So this is why it would not be considered, even if someone wanted it in base. > > It is not a goal in itself to move stuff from ports to base.
Thanks for the extended explanation too. This remind me two important stuff. The first is to not trust 100% software just because is the ports/packages and this should be enough worrisome. Second do not accept 3rd party requests to install packages that could compromise your system although source of requests appears "100%" clean. -- Daniele Bonini Feb 28, 2023 08:24:19 Janne Johansson <icepic...@gmail.com>: > Den mån 27 feb. 2023 kl 16:22 skrev Daniele B. <my2...@aol.com>: >> Janne Johansson <icepic...@gmail.com>: >> >>> It has been in ports/packages since 1999, it will stay there. >> >> Ok, thanks for the update. > > Really simple actually, www.openbsd.org/goals.html , point #2 > > * "Integrate good code from any source with acceptable licenses. ISC > or Berkeley style licences are preferred, the GPL is not acceptable > when adding new code" > (where "any source" doesn't mean "take any random program you find" > but rather "do not place external values on the source of a program we > decided we want to integrate") > > and the mtr ports Makefile: > https://cvsweb.openbsd.org/cgi-bin/cvsweb/ports/net/mtr/Makefile?annotate=1.75 > line 10 or so, > # GPLv2+ > > So this is why it would not be considered, even if someone wanted it in base. > > It is not a goal in itself to move stuff from ports to base. > > -- > May the most significant bit of your life be positive.
